[bigshot]

   
Why should I use analogue EQ when digital is so much better?

 
Analogue equalizers are less precise, with lots of spill between bands and tend to drift, so you have to keep adjusting them. Digital EQ is the way to go.

 

[RRod]

 
It can be recorded in several takes and DSD changed to PCM for editing only around/at edit mark.
 
Post tools never equal a well captured natural sound. "Photoshoped" music is precisely as unatural as photoshoped pictures - in real life, it does not exist. 
 

 
So you favor an "abstinence plus" approach? I still don't see why unmodified hi-res PCM would be inferior to DSD. It's not like one is *required* to use any DSP tools just because he recorded in PCM.

 

[lamode]

  Why do you think analog EQs offer equalizing WAY above 20 kHz - with center frequency as high as 50 kHz ?

Too get rid of ultrasonic noise! Glad you asked
 

 
(from "Introduction to Live Sound Reinforcement: The Science, the Art, and the Practice" By Teddy Boyce, p. 132)
 

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Why do you think I avoid more than two microphones and mixing - like a pleague ?
 

 
You might avoid them, but >99% of recordings don't.
 

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
It can be recorded in several takes and DSD changed to PCM for editing only around/at edit mark.
 

 
...which contradicts your earlier statement about the recordings being pure DSD. Converted DSD can only be worse than the PCM mix.
 

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Post tools never equal a well captured natural sound.
 

 
Nonsense. If properly used, post tools can improve the sound (EQ, reverb, etc) and of course artists should be free to process sound in any way they see fit. It is THEIR vision.

 

[headwhacker]

Originally Posted by RRod 
Quote:

 
It can be recorded in several takes and DSD changed to PCM for editing only around/at edit mark.
 
Post tools never equal a well captured natural sound. "Photoshoped" music is precisely as unatural as photoshoped pictures - in real life, it does not exist. 
 

 
So you favor and "abstinence plus" approach? I still don't see why unmodified hi-res PCM would be inferior to DSD. It's not like one is *required* to use any DSP tools just because he recorded in PCM.

 
Exactly, the existense of post processing tools in PCM doesn't force anyone to use it.
 
@analogsurviver Why would music recorded in PCM be inferior to DSD if we take out post processing into equation?

 

[analogsurviver]

 
Too get rid of ultrasonic noise! Glad you asked
 

 
(from "Introduction to Live Sound Reinforcement: The Science, the Art, and the Practice" By Teddy Boyce, p. 132)
 
 
You might avoid them, but >99% of recordings don't.
 
 
...which contradicts your earlier statement about the recordings being pure DSD. Converted DSD can only be worse than the PCM mix.
 
 
Nonsense. If properly used, post tools can improve the sound (EQ, reverb, etc) and of course artists should be free to process sound in any way they see fit. It is THEIR vision.

I will only comment on the post tools today. 
 
Musicians (remember, I am talking about acoustic music ) CAN NOT hear how a person in the audience does. 
Even the conductor does NOT hear it anywhere like a listener even in the first row - which is still thought to be too close by most listeners. So a violin player will invariably say he/she is way too quiet in the "mix" - of course, with a violin say 20 cm from his/hers nose, anything else becomes background - and pretty much everybody playing a different instrument will tell you the same/similar. 
 
This is the fundamental difference - I try to capture the sound as perceived by the LISTENER IN THE BEST POSSIBLE SEAT. And will try to get the best possible venue within the practical limitations. NO post mumbo jumbo. 

 

[lamode]

  I will only comment on the post tools today. 

 
Well you can ignore my points if you wish, but I hope you realize how incorrect and futile your stance is.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
So you favor and "abstinence plus" approach? I still don't see why unmodified hi-res PCM would be inferior to DSD. It's not like one is *required* to use any DSP tools just because he recorded in PCM.

I wrote many times recording DSD and PCM does not make sense with multimiking/mixing.
 
If the minuscule advantages offered by the DSD over approximately same size file PCM is to be taken advantage of, one has to make sure any time related distortions in the signal prior it reaches the input of the recorder are kept to a minimum. 
 
Once this criterion is met, DSD will show its superiority over PCM. Time errors with multimiking are so large compared to the advantages of DSD over PCM that they make these small advantages  effectively without any consequence. 
 
That is why I say that transfering old(er) recordings with less than stellar miking as to showcase the DSD is simply wrong. It will only reveal the shortcomings of the original recording better - possibly making it  sounding worse.
 
The acid test for any recording is what I have coined binaural natural. That is to say headworn mics. Properly done, this allows one to listen to the concert while recording it at the same time - and this is as close as you will ever get to real sound if this binaural recording is reproduced using a good set of earspeakers - preferably AKG K 1000.  Here DSD will outperform PCM - via listening to the recording made to two parallel recordings, one made to DSD recorder and other to PCM recorder.
 
NO mic , mixing desk, DSP, etc limitations - just DSD vs PCM. There is no monitoring possible - at least for the "unartificial artificial head" - but second person could listen while third person switching between the level matched recorders AND live mike feed - ABCX if you wish. 
 
I think this should also answer the question of the @headwhacker.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Well you can ignore my points if you wish, but I hope you realize how incorrect and futile your stance is.

The first quote was for the live sound reinforcement - which in itself is yet another possibility for the sound engineer to create an artificial sound that does not exist in real life. Be it for rock band (acceptable) or for a symphonic orchestra playing outdoors or BIG "mixed purpose" hall also used for concerts (unacceptable) - which usually creates such poor sound I endure these only if absolutely unavoidable for one reason or another. I would NEVER pay to hear such a concert - period. The last one was a concert by Bocelli - which only strengthened this belief. 
 
Now fast forward to real acoustic thing in a real acoustic space - go and listen to this - and the same musicians outdoors with mikes and speakers. The second will NEVER even approach the real thing - and the errors in the sound heard live are too great to warrant even the use of the CD redbook, let alone justifying the difference DSD to PCM.
 
Real acoustic thing in a real acoustic space is quite another matter. And it is the reference we should be trying to capture. 
 
Anything you do to the sound as captured by the carefully positioned stereo mike in post will be detrimental to the realistic SQ. In other genres it is acceptable, in acoustic music it creates something that does not exist in real life and sounds plain unnatural - but unfortunately it represents some 99% of all available recordings.
 
In other words - recording a piano in a relatively small studio necessitating closer than optimum miking and adding reverb etc with sampling of acoustics of famous halls will never be the equal of the piano recorded in that famous concert hall. Due to economical constraints, it is often being done - but that does not mean it is good, let alone the best. Regardless how much DSP is involved.

 

[Greenears]

Hello - anyone out there got anything to say about 24b vs 16b? Yes that is PCM, usually embodied as FLAC.

 

[castleofargh]

staying on topic is so 2014.
the photoshop comparison works well for once. when did the ability to do more become a bad thing? sure some will abuse everything, but that's mostly what noobs do. when pro abuse stuff they suck or were told to.

analogsurv if you really are into minimalistic interventions, why not go all the way and only do binaural records? that way at least you have a real reason to touch nothing.

 

[bigshot]

If someone wants to comment on the music production process, it helps to have actually worked in it on a professional level. Just sayin'...

 

[limpidglitch]

  I try to capture the sound as perceived by the LISTENER IN THE BEST POSSIBLE SEAT.

Which makes sense if you plan for your capture to be played back on headphones. As Castle mentions, why not just go full binaural?

 

[analogsurviver]

 
Which makes sense if you plan for your capture to be played back on headphones. As Castle mentions, why not just go full binaural?

There are MANY reasons why not going binaural only. Although it is the best way to go - nothing else comes even close in realism. Specially if headphones are supported by the addition of subwoofer in order to provide tactile bass.
 
There are persons who would rather stop listening to reproduced music if  the only option would be binaural over headphones. With these people, sales potential of binaural is exactly nil. It is speakers - or nothing.
 
There are people, mostly performers, who prefer somewhat "enhanced" version of miking meant for loudspeakers. And would choose it over truth but nothing but the truth any day in a week.
 
I will not beat around the bush - binaural will really knock your socks off with one "headphone" only  - AKG K 1000. Discontinued and ever harder to get - around 13-14 thousands of pairs ever produced.
 
IF there is enough time and the main recording meant to be listened over speakers does not get compromised, I will simultaneously record binaural. But it is, in financial terms, strictly hobby on my part so far. With one single exception. It means mastering has to be done twice - which drives the costs beyond the capabilities and willingness of most customers.
 
I have to eat - clear enough ?

 

[analogsurviver]

  If someone wants to comment on the music production process, it helps to have actually worked in it on a professional level. Just sayin'...

IIRC, you said who in the world would put 10 amplifiers in a chain.
 
Now, please go and see any schematics for a mixing desk. As a starter.
 
Then repeat that for a recorder.
 
These two above are more than enough to prevent you to ever hear the true sound of the source.
 
IIRC, you said you prefer the dynamic range limited to 40-50 dB. That necessitates the use of a hardware compressor or some software in DAW. And are both way worse than just an additional amplifier stage in the chain.
 
All of the above will mangle the signal enough for the CD redbook to be "transparent" .
 
And I did not touch the subject of the microphones at all - and I never will.
 
Because 99% of the pro gear not only is useless, it is detrimental to the SQ. 
 
That is why I will never go ta a "professional level sound school" - as it has, over the years, evolved in better photoshop than Photoshop itself.  Creating ever more gear, glossing over the inherent deficiences. Thank you, but NO - thank you.
 
Somewhat inspirational : http://www.stereophile.com/content/keith-o-johnson-reference-recordings

 

[analogsurviver]

staying on topic is so 2014.
the photoshop comparison works well for once. when did the ability to do more become a bad thing? sure some will abuse everything, but that's mostly what noobs do. when pro abuse stuff they suck or were told to.

analogsurv if you really are into minimalistic interventions, why not go all the way and only do binaural records? that way at least you have a real reason to touch nothing.

The ability to do more falsification was never good in my book. Pros with the capability WILL abuse stuff - if they are told so. They have to eat, too. Far more dangerous is the temptation "whether I should TRY effectthiseffectthat" on the next project - why that "effectthiseffectthat" go to waste - if you already had to pay for it in order to get what you wanted in the first place and was not available on any model short of the TOTL - graced with every bell and whistle, imaginable or not.
 
In the vinyl world, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab ( MFSL for short ) is hailed as consistently churning out the records sounding better than originals. At least one of the engineers involved admitted he/they have been told to use EQ - more bass, more sizzle - because the owner of the label at the time knew such records would sell better. 
 
And they did - but that does not make them true to the source.
 
One big advantage of the MFSL pressings during a certain period was the use of the best ever pressing plant - JVC Japan. That vinyl, originally developed for the CD-4 quadrophony ( and the only one good enough to withstand multiple playings without shaving off the high frequency carrier ),  still blows anything else out of the water - now some 20-30 years ago.
 
JVC did also do quite well with binaural - both on amateur and pro level.
 
http://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Adventure-In-Binaural/release/2747277
 
http://www.discogs.com/No-Artist-Adventure-In-Binaural-Vol-2/release/3
 
It was premature, it was not not "finished" - but they definitely knew what they were doing. The least which can be said they deserve some credit for trying to improve things - it went way above ooching and aaaching about falling on the "safe bet" of say Telefunken U-47 ...